Breakthrough in Physics

  • Then again you have to watch these theoretical physicists who are apt to use mathematical fiddles or maybe invent novel coefficients to either simplify things when it becomes too complex (eg Feynman diagrams) or lose a couple of letters in amplitudehedron which has morphed to amplituhedron! Who can you really trust these days when there is such pressure in science, industry and academia to perform, extend the horizons, invent new theories in what has become a celebrity culture where only the top 1-5 % survive?

  • This is just the kind of talk of people in love with their conceptual tool that solves some scenarios well enough, but not all, and has become a constraint instead of a stimulus. We need a better model. QM was great at its moment, but now is stagnant, no matter how mathematically beautiful or appealing it may be.


    Sure, that is what I was saying.


    But QM + SM solve a very large number of the scenarios - as you put it. So a better model had better at very least duplicate those successes.


    As for stagnant - look at the current research activity around quantum spacetime - many variants. It is no way stagnant and holds the promise of a revolution that will underpin both QM and GR, and maybe resolve some of the burning questions now like what is dark energy and dark mass.


    I can't understand how anyone can be so pessimistic and negative at a time when theoretical physics is in an exciting state of change.

  • look at the current research activity around quantum spacetime


    Unfortunately there is little productive research in nuclearmodelling in SM


    something to do with the proton radius and Higgs but

    little to do with the neutron and proton mass and magnetic moment

    which are fundamental.


    On the positive side there are several theories which eschew SM and give much more accurate prediction for

    neutron and proton parameters.

  • On the positive side there are several theories which eschew SM and give much more accurate prediction for

    neutron and proton parameters.


    if they cannot reproduce SM results then they do not predict 99.9% of the relevant observations. Correctly describing 2, while saying nothing about the rest, is not a good trade off!


    If they can reproduce SM results I'm all for it and let us discuss the peer reviewed papers.


    Here is a pretty good summary of the successes of (and gaps in) SM:


    https://physics.stackexchange.…heory-of-particle-physics


    What other theory does better?

  • What other theory does better?

    For the neutron and proton parameters in dense matter

    even Magnitskii predicts better than QED/QCD with simple equations.

    He is still developing his ether theory


    Not a sign of Dirac..


    For undense matter, such as outside the nucleus maybe SM is OK

    but inside the nucleus it flounders.


    What are the predictions for neutron/proton magnetic moment and mass

    after 50 or so years of QCD/QED?

    Are they accurate to even 0.0075 % ??






    https://iopscience.iop.org/art…42-6596/1141/1/012052/pdf

  • For those I'm not blocking interested in particle physics, although you might think the no new particles except Higgs status of the LHC is boring, there are other experiments challenging SM predictions, and if the results are wrong that means new SM physics.


    https://www.sciencenews.org/ar…nts-revamp-standard-model


    g-2 is the one to watch and should have new more accurate results soon. it did appear to be 3.5 Sd away from theory, but it seems that including Gr corrections that is maybe not true, or maybe still is:


    https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9986


    Note from this how open science and publication with critique from others gives you the chance to detect and correct errors. There is no way that single calculations can ever be believed...

  • So this is the position now with an outdated hypothesis in ascendancy -


    Quantum Supremacy II

    Posted on September 7, 2019 by woit

    About the only thing that has transcended the bitter partisan divisions between Democrats and Republicans in the US during recent years has been quantum mechanics, with the enactment late last year of the National Quantum Initiative Act (the NQI was first mentioned on the blog here). In March there was a National Quantum Coordination Office established at the White House, and last week there was an executive order establishing a National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee.

    The NQI directs the federal government to spend $1.2 billion over the next five years, with the NSF told to create two to five “Multidisciplinary Centers for Quantum Research and Education” and the DOE two to five “National Quantum Information Science Research Centers”. Besides the NQI, pretty much everywhere you look the past few years you see new well-funded “quantum” centers popping up, two randomly chosen examples would be the Chicago Quantum Exchange and the Yale Quantum Institute. In the private sector, a huge investment in quantum science is taking place, driven by hopes that quantum computing and other applications will lead to a technological revolution and associated vast riches.

    Looking at new books on fundamental physics that I’ve seen over the past year and a half, the conventional enthusiastic treatment of string theory/SUSY/extra dimensions is now dead, with Sabine Hossenfelder’s Lost in Math the only popular book addressing these topics, and doing so in a quite negative way. The new trendy topic is the foundations of quantum mechanics, with the recent publication of Adam Becker’s What is Real?, Philip Ball’s Beyond Weird, Anil Ananthaswamy’s Through Two Doors at Once, Lee Smolin’s Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution, George Greenstein’s Quantum Strangeness, and Sean Carroll’s Something Deeply Hidden. Forthcoming from Oxford University Press are two quantum books by Jim Baggott, Quantum Reality and The Quantum Cookbook.

    On the whole this change in hot topic is a positive development, although the fact that it’s driven by a lack of anything new to say about particle physics and unification is rather depressing. On the quantum front, while I think it’s great that public attention is being drawn to quantum mechanics, if you look at my reviews you’ll see that I have mixed feelings about the point of view taken by some of the recent books (the best of the lot I think is Philip Ball’s).

    The latest example of the high public profile of quantum mechanics is the publication today in the New York Times of a piece by Sean Carroll arguing that Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics: worse, they don’t seem to want to understand it. Unfortunately I don’t think that this article accurately describes the issues surrounding what we do and don’t understand about “quantum foundations”, nor the dramatically improving funding prospects for research in this area. In addition I don’t think that it’s accurate, fair (or good for public relations) to portray your colleagues as “not really interested in how nature really works”, somehow not curious or bright enough to realize (see here) that there is a crisis at the heart of their subject and that, thanks to Sean Carroll:

    the crisis can now come to an end. We just have to accept that there is more than one of us in the universe. There are many, many Sean Carrolls. Many of every one of us.

    Last Updated on September 7, 2019


  • Hi, which hypothesis is outdated, and what replaces it in explaining how much?


    I think we all agree that QM foundations is exciting because it will tie in to new theories of quantum spacetime eventually. But you can't really see a theory as outdated till you have a better one to replace it...

  • But you can't really see a theory as outdated till you have a better one to replace it...

    Sometimes an outdated theory lives on long past its use by date

    because of the faithful..


    at least in the UK, Ether lived on for about twenty years after Einstein's 1905 Apocalypse.

    "Ein who? never heard of the chap, old boy !"

    "He's supposed to be a German ...



    Maybe Magnitskii's Russian Ether will catch on in the UK first:)

  • It's ofcourse "cool" to talk about QM, GR, SM and various Quantum centrums etc. But it doesn't contribute much to this issue.


    First of all, I have went through all these undoubtly very well working mathematical models about observable physics. As if any changes on any concepts are made, this stuff which is obviously correct, must also remain at least in mathematical interpretation exact the same.


    So basically what is needed is just to change something, which only corrects the problems, but keeps everything else in physics intact and as it was.

    It's also preferred that this change makes thing more simple.


    And this is exactly what has been achieved here.

    Though the change is at first view unbelievably messy, it actually isn't. There is no mass. We don't need the unit "kg" to be able to describe whole physics totally completely.

    This change keeps everything as they are, but removes the contradictions. The explanation of mass can't be found from Higgs Boson or inside the particle. It's source is the galactic rotation through Thomas Precession.

    This obviously destroys the fundaments of (Newtonian) Gravity, as if there is no mass, there also can't be any Newtonian Gravity. This all I realized already few years ago; Gravity can be explained more simply.


    What has been more interesting, is to walk the path where this leads. As when I have been thinking all the consequences of this, and then observed some "mysterious" stuff in nature, this idea has been able to provide a comprehensive solvable answer in all other cases besides the mass ratio of Electron and Proton and to related things.

    This was now changed when Preston Quynn provided his stuff.


    To me it was very easy to absorb his unit corrections, which I agree must sound really "grazy" to anyone who understands something about physics. As the units just must work, or other vice it's just numerology.


    What I don't understand, is why it's so difficult to accept that mass, "kg" is just a manmade concept which lacks universally valid foundation of it's existence. As that what it just is. A piece of metal in Paris. The resent change to define it through some "kibbs balance" is not working if you look close the story. There is no lab results which could have been reproduced in reasonable accuracy.


    Luckily I don't need to fight for this. The truth will stand on it's own. To me it's just another level of "flat earth"-theorists when some "THHuxleynew" writes a comment like;

    Quote

    "This is complete and utter rubbish at every level. "


    I just smile and think "Sure, in every level on your reach." (Not meant to insult here, just replying my true thoughts.)


    The most interesting thing here is the Entropy turning point; the answer about the big question. "Where is the beginning and how all ends?"

    As there is no Beginning and no end. As this all can keep going over infinite time. This means you will have enough time to play with the LHC searching the mass and quantum gravity. The infinite number of the "small particles inside the hadrons" just make's it so "cool".

  • It is good that we have the publisher of that one page of "rubbish at every level" with us to respond to critique.


    my feedback, in this case, is:


    (1) correct typos etc so that equations make sense (see my screenshots). There seems to be some issue with fonts.

    (2) define precisely all letters used in equations

    (3) provide explicit peer reviewed (if possible, since some help with quality) references for the work from others that you need to prove what you are saying

    (4) state either some prediction you make that differs from standard theory, or what set of standard equations etc are replaced by your (more compact and fundamental) theory. The "or" part is quite difficult, and would probably take many more pages.


    THH


  • (1) Not interested. According to my experience those who understand are able to do it with or without typos.

    (2) This is reasonable question and I must apologize if there is something which is not clear, but without any specific hint I am not able to do anything about it.

    (3) Sure, would be nice to have.

    (4) This is good one. I ie. knew about the coronal heating problem, but when "I walk along this path" I noticed that this "excessive heat" must be present in Earths near space, and when I checked this, I immediately found "thermosphere". But how should I predict "thermosphere"...

    And I also became an idea how I the states of matter could be defined from the speed of light, and the first step was between condensed-kinetic matter, but that could have been only a coinsidence, but then I got another step forward and got an idea how this could also explain the kinetic-plasma change and it did, and this idea was also supported by the observations in Earths atmosphere, but also in the atmospheres in other planets.


    There is some mistaken steps in my papers which for i need to laugh today, but the basic concept (mass is a pseudo thing) has standed through this all. I propose this paper to read if you search some predictive powers;

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…d_from_The_Speed_of_Light


    And I admit that these could be better written. But then; "only a fool here has anything to prove". What I wan't to say with this, is that I don't care at all if I can convince some others with this. I am only interested about if I have been able to work this out my self. At the moment I am sort of in the same situation like Charles Darwin was after his voyages with Beagle. He had figured things out, but the big book was still waiting to be written. So maybe I write such book some day. Maybe not. It just doesn't change anything in reality. Anyhow; thanks for interest & direct opinions said loud.


    But this all is basically very easy. Leave mass out. And try to solve everything without it.

  • PhysicsForDummies

    The Crackpots have per definition "unshakable belief" which I don't have. I am very open to any possible answers and options. The scientific method is simple; if something disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to this. You are free to deliver better answers...


    Dr Richard

    Philosophy... Well no. E=mc^2 is an equation which shows a relation and it should be written E/m = c^2 which is a constant.

    But saying "there is no mass" doesn't mean that there isn't this acceleration related thing which we call "mass" and which can be be measured. Or even that that this usage of the concept mass in some local scale (like in earth) wouldn't be reasonable. The point is to notice that the total mass of universe is zero. The important local usage of this idea is that the energy of destructed matter is constant and not mass related. If you look the typical nuclear reactions in the known nuclear Powerplants, the equation E=mc^2 actually doesn't provide you the accurate energy release from the system related to the mass.


    (And of course joke's are funny and humor is a good thing, but after a certain developement level you just don't laugh to the simplest stuff.)

  • If you look the typical nuclear reactions in the known nuclear Powerplants, the equation E=mc^2 actually doesn't provide you the accurate energy release from the system related to the mass.


    This has nothing to do with e=mc2! The problem is that in reality only the formula E=dmc2 works and 2: The SM has no clue of dense matter structure and ergo has no picture to explain how mass is disposed. That's why all differences are explained by SM as being neutrinos.., what in English is a synonym for "I don't know".


    More important: J should show us a concept how he can preserve Newton mechanics without using mass...